(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Refusal to award a State retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transgender person who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery — Conditions for recognition of gender reassignment — Condition related to the obligation to annul a previous marriage)

EU law

5. According to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7:

‘The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on ground of sex either directly, or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status, in particular as concerns:

– the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access thereto,

– the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions,

– the calculation of benefits including increases due in respect of a spouse and for dependants and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.’

6. Article 7(1) of Directive 79/7 provides that:

‘This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to exclude from its scope:

(a) the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits;

...’

B. UK law

1. Retirement age

7. The United Kingdom has made use of the derogation allowed by Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7.

8. As stated in the order for reference, the combined effect of (i) section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with the definition of ‘pensionable age’ in section 122 of that act, and (ii) Schedule 4(1) of the Pensions Act 1995, is that women born before 6 April 1950 are eligible for a State retirement pension at the age of 60, whereas men born before 6 December 1953 become eligible at the age of 65.

B. The narrow question

30. It is not disputed that the benefit at issue in this case, a State retirement pension, falls within the scope of Directive 79/7. That directive prohibits any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex concerning the conditions of access to social security schemes providing protection, inter alia, against the risk of old age. (6)

31. Is there a prohibited discrimination in the present case? According to the standard line of case-law of this Court, (7) for there to be direct discrimination, there must be an unequal treatment of a comparable group of persons to the detriment of the protected group. This must occur on the basis of one of the protected grounds, without any possible objective justification for such a difference in treatment.

32. For presentational purposes, in this section, I first assess whether there is a protected ground (1). I shall then turn to the comparability of transgender (8) and cisgender(9) persons (2), and the existence of unequal treatment (3). I shall conclude this section by looking at the impossibility of justifying direct discrimination in the legislative context of Directive 79/7 (4).

A coda

101. I wish to add five concluding remarks.

102. First, from the discussion in previous parts of this Opinion, it became (hopefully) clear that this case is not about same-sex marriage. As recalled above, according to the case-law of the Court, Member States remain free as to whether or not they wish to recognise same-sex marriages. The problem in this particular case is, simply put, that a number of various conditions, if bundled up together, end up creating a rather peculiar (and from the point of view of EU law, problematic) configuration.

103. Second, the answer provided only affects the benefits covered by Directive 79/7. It only applies to benefits unrelated to marital status.

104. Third, this case concerns a unique and singular reality, which fits with difficulty into the traditionally binary divisions on which the prohibition of sex discrimination relies. The circumstances of the case must be placed in that perspective. It concerns a rather limited number of individuals facing profound challenges often in situations of vulnerability. It has to do with a complex human reality with which individual legal orders have struggled to catch up over time, and in which individuals often see their personal situation profoundly affected by constant legislative changes.

105. Fourth, at the cross-section between the first and third point is also the nature of the requirement in question. Much has been said in this Opinion about comparability. But that, at times rather technical, discussion should not obfuscate the profound impact that the necessity to have one’s marriage annulled, in order to be recognised in a new situation that was hardly of one’s free will and choice, is likely to have on one’s privacy and personality, already probably shaken as the consequence of those changes.

106. Fifth and lastly, but perhaps for the future the most important, the difficult issues of the present case arise precisely because, in the particular field at hand, namely that of retirement pensions, a derogation from the equal treatment principle persists, according to Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7. This is not only exceptional because it entails derogation from one of the most fundamental principles of EU law, allowing for direct discrimination based on sex, but also because it had already been expected to progressively disappear 38 years ago, through the convergence of the retirement ages for men and woman.

107. As the referring court has stated, in the United Kingdom, the retirement age for men and women will gradually converge and be the same. Thus, there as well as in other Member States, the root of the problem is bound to disappear as well.

V. Conclusion

108. As a result of the foregoing, I propose that the question referred by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom be answered as follows:

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender be unmarried in order to qualify for a State retirement pension.

Cristine say's

Basically the court has ruled that each individual state has the right to impose restrictions rules in relation to what is termed a legal marriage and the conditions imposed within the scope of it's own GRA, in aspects of the marriage, but in this case the overriding factor is the unequal differential as to at what age men and women can apply for and receive their pensions.

Not wasted at all Cristine. Your insight is there for others to read as well. It will be interesting to see how whether the gender discrimination in GMP is upheld in the Lloyds case and if so, whether this ECJ ruling will be mentioned. Thanks again,

The ECJ found that the UK's marriage annulment condition (designed to avoid marriage between persons of the same sex) is "unrelated" to the retirement pension scheme.

And so it concluded that UK legislation "constitutes direct discrimination based on sex''and is therefore in breach of European law

In my considered opinion, put simply this was not a win for the trangendered woman, as it stands legally she is still male, the win was for discrimination against men in general, the emphasis of the judgement was discrimination based on sex under the equality and oportuniities act.

The EHRC ruling is rather confusing, stating that pensions are not related to the GRA, and that it is a gender issue, does that mean now that men can apply for their pension on the same terms that women get an earlier payment. So throughout the EU it will cost billions. Technically until someone is lawfully recognised in their new gender hence the GRP authorising the issue of a new birth certificate. Until 2013 same sex marriage was not recognised, which in my considered opinion now means throughout the EU countries will have to amend their gender recognition acts, acts that at the time of introduction were ratified by the European Courts of Human rights. Vatican City a separate state within the EU is exempt from complying in the main with various laws especially same sex marriage based on religious grounds, As is The Irish republic, Spain and Portugal. we have seen that some states have been forced to drop enforced medical procedures to qualify for a GRC, but the EU does not enforce those countries that have not dropped these procedures.

Which basically means that someone in each member state will have to take up issues with their own legal systems and then appeal to Strasbourg for a ruling, EU Human rights laws, are lacking continuance, once a judgement has been made an edict should be issued ordering all member states to amend and add to their own acts similar to our UK Judicial Precedent.

The amendment to the 2010 marriage act, 2013, when applying for a GRC, by both parties signing a statutory declaration of mutual agreement to continue in the marriage a new status marriage certificate will be issued along with a new birth certificate. not to be confused with a civil partnership.

Part 1 of Schedule 5 makes changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (the “Gender Recognition Act”). The Gender Recognition Act enables transsexual people to change their legal gender by applying for a gender recognition certificate under section 1 of that Act. The issue of a full gender recognition certificate enables recipients to be recognised for all legal purposes in their new gender (“the acquired gender”). Under the previous law, transsexual people who are married or in a civil partnership must end their marriage or civil partnership before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued. This is achieved by the Gender Recognition Panel issuing an interim gender recognition certificate to married applicants and applicants in civil partnerships, which causes the marriage or civil partnership to become voidable. Applicants then have six months from the date of issue of the interim gender recognition certificate to apply to the court to end their marriage or civil partnership. Once a marriage or civil partnership has been annulled (or a divorce or dissolution has occurred in Scotland) the court can issue a full gender recognition certificate.

146.Part 1 of this Schedule amends the Gender Recognition Act to enable an existing marriage registered in England and Wales or outside the UK (“protected marriage” defined in paragraph 14 as a marriage under the law of England and Wales, or a marriage under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom) to continue where one or both parties change their legal gender and both parties wish to remain married. It also amends that Act to enable a civil partnership (“protected civil partnership” defined in paragraph 14 as a civil partnership under the law of England and Wales) to continue where both parties change their legal gender simultaneously and wish to remain in their civil partnership.

147.Paragraph 2 inserts new subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) which amend the evidence requirements in section 3 of the Gender Recognition Act. At present, section 3(6)(a) of that Act requires transsexual people who apply to the Gender Recognition Panel for a gender recognition certificate to submit a statutory declaration as to whether they are married or in a civil partnership. This enables the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether to issue a full gender recognition certificate (for people who are not married or in a civil partnership) or an interim certificate (for people who are married or in a civil partnership).

148.New subsection (6A) requires married applicants to include in their statutory declaration an additional declaration as to where their marriage was registered. This will enable the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether the marriage is a protected marriage. Where the marriage is a protected marriage, new subsection (6B) requires an application to contain a declaration by the applicant’s spouse that he or she consents to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full gender recognition certificate (a “statutory declaration of consent”), or a statutory declaration by the applicant that his or her spouse has not made such a declaration. If the application contains a statutory declaration of consent by the applicant’s spouse, new subsection (6C) requires the Gender Recognition Panel to inform the spouse that an application has been made.

149.Paragraph 3 replaces existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Gender Recognition Act (which provides for the issue of interim and full gender recognition certificates following an application) and inserts new subsections (3A) and (3B) into that section. The effect of these amendments is to enable a full gender recognition certificate to be issued:

Thats interesting! Do you mean Ammendments 68, 70 & 72 of the 2010 Marriage act which is only for those Married in Scotland? If not i would be grateful if you could post a link to the ammendments in English law as thats the only ammendment im aware of affecting this. I could be wrong hense i would like a link to it as im sure many would have an interest including me Link here

Because your birth certificate depicts your recognised gender in law, a fact true when registered, If a person applies for a GRC when it's issued the birth certificate is then altered to reflect the new gender, they are then entitled to their pension at an earlier age in line with a woman's right's, some transgendered married people do not wish to apply for a GRC because they are under the impression a divorce is required BUT under the 2010 marriage act revisions 2013 a person can apply for a new amended marriage certificate at the same time the new birth certificate is issued, with a change of gender, before one had to get an annulment or a divorce and then enter a civil type marriage, now it saves all that expense and heart ache of going through that process for those wishing to stay married. When people start their transition, they should ensure that DWP and all agencies are informed, and original Change of name deed polls are sent.

The definition of a legal original document (not a photo copy) so print of 10 or more copies, of the document get each one witnessed and signed then sign them all in front of the witness, now you have 10 original deed polls. A person can't grumble if they don't want or can't be arsed to comply with a few simple lawful requirements. Otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry will be taking advantage of the system,

People go to the trouble of changing their gender on their passports, driving documents, bank accounts, bank accounts, doctors and medical records, to get the recognition the want , need, why not apply for the GRC to get the pension?

Why do some people think this is discrimination, Is having to pass a driving test, pay NI contributions, tax is that a form of general discrimination???? IF ANYTHING THE PENSION SYSTEM MEN v WOMEN IS GENERALLY SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT.

The prison authorities decide where a prisoner is incarcerated, judges can only make recommendations, if the person has a GRC, then legally they are female and must be interned in a woman's prison, under the law and the EHRC one cannot be forced into corrective surgery, to gain that entitlement.

What I am trying to say is men abuse women, men abuse men, women abuse men and they also abuse other women, why do newspapers emphasise Transgender as if one has to be transgendered do these despicable things,

This is a really good post and overall I think the prison system does this. At least, this is what I have found in my establishment. I think you will always get employees and guards who don't get it or deliberately don't want to understand. But the prison will still try to adhere to the corect way of doing things, almost to spite the odd bad apple.

The papers today, claimed that because of their early reporting in other cases, referring to Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, William Goad, & Savile that other people came forward, Wrong. Those people had already been arrested and charged before the rush of accusations, as reported today in several papers. In this instance it was sensationalism at it's worst. I believe until sufficient evidence has been gathered to charge someone the law should protect privacy, in this instance the BBC was tipped off by the police. One paper even claimed that MP Chris Hunne case of perverting the cause of justice by allocation speeding fines to his wife would have been covered up if it was not for their early reporting, how absurd.

If the media has prior information about such crimes, they should report it to the authorities, not take it upon themselves to publicly report it, there is the offence of failing to report a crime and with-holding evidence, perhaps perverting the course of justice, (prejudicial reporting)

Typically the reporting of crimes committed by transsexuals always where sex crimes are the topic, the emphasis is on the gender change, as if that was the reason they commit such dastardly crimes. Revealing information that by law is protected, previous names etc.

When a Gender Recognition Cerificate (GRC) is awarded, it becomes a criminal offence to reveal the owner's transgender history. At present the fine is £5000. It is the individual who reveals the name, not the organisation for which they work, who will face charges. There are no exemptions for journalism as there are with the Data Protection Act. Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act was created with an "expectation of privacy" in mind.

It is important for a transgender person to be able to wipe the slate clean, to live a life free from persecution. Provided they have no outstanding debts, their credit history will be erased. They will be entitled to a new passport and driving licence. There is even a fresh birth certificate to help them through life. All of this is to no avail if their previous and current name are linked on a website. When this happens, such a person has no choice but to change their name again if they want the privacy to which they are entitled.

Whilst the legal position is not cut-and-dried, it is heavily weighted in favour of the transgender person. Even colleagues discussing a post-transitional person may be in breach of this law. Even before the award of a GRC, charges of harassment may be applied if the person is reported about on separate occasions using their previous name.Any article remaining on the internet following the award of a GRC may expose its author and editor to risk of prosecution.

The award of a GRC is never publicly announced, of course. There have been no high-profile prosecutions under Section 22 but that situation is unlikely to last. It is best to respect the terms of the person's deed poll and refer to them by their chosen name only.

Whatever it was wrong, where is the innocent until proved guilty. Or at least until a criminal charge is made against a person. I know a transwoman that was accused of shop lifting, when they searched her house they lined her sex toys up in the bedroom window, during the search. When she was taken down the police station, she eventually proved she was at work when the incident took place, the shop keeper identified her from a previous incident, when she was found guilty and got probation, she had never gone back to that shop, being too embarrassed,

Why did the police allow the press into the premises to film the search in progress in the first instance, the basis of obtaining evidence is to preserve the scene/premises from contamination, this film would be judged prejudicial to any further case,

''He said seeing coverage of the search at his apartment was like "watching burglars" going through his belongings and that he has never lived in the apartment again because it's "contaminated''

He watched the live coverage unfold from Portugal and told the court he could see cops "going through the drawers" in one of the rooms.

Reporter Dan Johnson had received a tip off from South Yorkshire Police about the raid.

The star added: “What the BBC did to me was very wrong. I was portrayed as a sex offender around the world before I had even been questioned by police.”

What if, they the police had found embarrassing but innocent items, unrelated to any perceived crime would they have held them up for the BBC cameras, laughed and shouted eureka?

''Understandably, my wife believes that it is unreasonable for her to continue to live with me as a woman and now wants a divorce. She does not want to wait two years. Under current divorce laws, the only option she has is to divorce me is on the grounds of ‘unreasonable behaviour’; given that it would be ‘unreasonable’ for the courts to expect her to live with me in a lesbian relationship now that I have revealed to her that I have always considered myself to have been female''.

Your admission is where the problem lays, Matters of first impression was your only hope.

I was going to throw my sixpence worth into the fray but I've decided not to comment on this thread at all because I don't feel qualified to do so. I did A Level Law back in the 1970s and I remember Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co and Donoghue v Stevenson but that's about all.

I think we're very lucky to have Crissie here because she really does know her stuff.

And whatever happened to Julia Ford? Is anyone still in touch with her?

Former member, Julia Ford, outspoken, no tact, but someone I loved dearly and knew very well, a heart of gold, Perhaps would have been the best Prime Minister this country ever had, for her basic honesty and ''Tell it like it is attitude'' but in defence of the originator of this thread, life is so much more complcated, people like us do try to conform and live up to what is expected of us, ''Social norms'' not understanding that change is inevitable, the unhapiness of trying to live a life that we did'nt subconciously want or need.

Some had a sod them attitude, this is what I am, accept it, some like myself starting out very young, confused, frightened, did come out, not with attitude, if my young life was miserable, I was in a It cannot get any worse situation, I realy believe that people trying to live up to expections and a heteronormativity way of life do not do it with intent to cause hurt and misery, or are even being nieve, their honest intention at the time, is just that and should not be deemed callous or deceptive with intent.

Everyones situation, condition, is different, we must not jump to quickly to judge others, with a you must do it this way attitude.

Well here I am 8 years later with my law degree, inspired by this site ''The Gender society'' basically shocked at the transgressions and bigotry heaped upon us as a minority group, hoping to specialise in the UK GRA and the Human rights laws relevant to trans people under the EU Human rights charter.

The UK probably has the most inclusive, relaxed laws of any country in the world, to date 22 EU member states still have enforced medical procedures before they can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate, Some time ago in a post I pointed out that in my opinion enforced medical procedures to qualify were in effect a contradiction to said Human rights, but Strasbourg had approved/ratified each individual states gender recognition acts, We have seen a few people here making comments on other countries acts and stating what goes for them is applicable here in the UK, not so, if it was a standard across the EU act we would have been forced to adopt some of the more punishing aspect of other states acts. many of them preceding the advent of the UK protection act referring to trans people 2004. A member country is not guilty of failure to comply, as long as it complies with it's own act, until Strasbourg rules otherwise.

Since then we have come a long way seeing our own act and other applicable acts being amended, one such instance is the 2013 amendment to the marriage act, allowing married couples to stay married upon application for their recognition certificate, if they complete a mutual agreement form, then when the new birth certificate is issued for the person transitioning a revised marriage certificate (same sex marriage) is also registered, saving the heartache and distress of going for a divorce or annulment and a subsequent civil marriage.

Last year I attended a pre-seminar conference the enforced requirement medical procedures requirement, very happy to announce Strasbourg Ruling.

''The European Court of Human Rights today found that the sterilisation requirement in legal gender recognition violates human rights. Setting the legal precedent for Europe, this decision will force the remaining 22 countries using the infertility requirement to change their laws.

This historic decision is delivered in three joined cases against France about the lack of self-determination of transgender individuals in the country. A. P., E. Garçon and S. Nicot relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for private life

“Today is a victory for trans people and human rights in Europe. This decision ends the dark chapter of state-induced sterilisation in Europe. The 22 states in which a sterilisation is still mandatory will have to swiftly end this practice. We are looking forward to supporting those and other countries in reforming their national legislation.” comments Julia Ehrt, Transgender Europe Executive Director.

However, the Court denied that forced medical examinations ordered by the national court (E. Garcon v France) or a mental health diagnosis (A.P. v France) contradict the Convention.

“It is regrettable that cruel and unnecessary medical examinations are seen to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to raise awareness about the human rights abuses in the medical field that trans people are still systematically subjected to.”, says Richard Köhler, Senior Policy Officer of Transgender Europe.

The three applicants have been struggling for almost a decade to have their gender identity recognised by the French state. Before October 2016, a person who wanted to have their gender identity legally recognised needed to prove infertility and genital surgery plus undergo excessive and lengthy discriminatory examinations.

The Court found that requesting proof for “having undergone a sterilising operation or medical treatment resulting in a very high probability of infertility, amounts to a breach by the respondent State of its positive obligation to guarantee the right […] to respect for […] private life.” Thus, states cannot demand from a person seeking legal gender recognition to undergo any medical treatment that would most likely result in sterility'' .https://tgeu.org/issues/legal-gender-recognition/

The requirement to be under medical supervision remains, to qualify for ones Gender Recognition Certificate, this is self explanatory, it ensures, or should, that people are genuinely in need of the treatment they deserve, in this age of litigation and ambulance chasers in my opinion it is the right decision, we have already seen men interned in UK prisons for some heinous crimes now claiming to be transgendered to apparently avail themselves of an easier life in a woman's prison, eg Ian Huntley, the killer sex abuser of two very young girls.

Not that this applied to the UK, No form of surgery is legally required, but it proves just how diverse different EU member states have had their own GRA recognised by the EHRC something I have pointed out on numerous occasions when people have stated ''according to Van Glock Germany etc etc we have the right to this and that and we don't have to do this and the other'' I stated in other post's 2010, 2013, in my opinion enforced surgical procedures were a violation of ones basic human rights.

At the moment until a country member amends its own GRA, previously sanctioned by the HRC it is the law of that country until the HRC issues an order of compliance.

The European Court of Human Rights today found that the sterilisation requirement in legal gender recognition violates human rights. Setting the legal precedent for Europe, this decision will force the remaining 22 countries using the infertility requirement to change their laws.

This historic decision is delivered in three joined cases against France about the lack of self-determination of transgender individuals in the country. A. P., E. Garçon and S. Nicot relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for private life

“Today is a victory for trans people and human rights in Europe. This decision ends the dark chapter of state-induced sterilisation in Europe. The 22 states in which a sterilisation is still mandatory will have to swiftly end this practice. We are looking forward to supporting those and other countries in reforming their national legislation.” comments Julia Ehrt, Transgender Europe Executive Director.

However, the Court denied that forced medical examinations ordered by the national court (E. Garcon v France) or a mental health diagnosis (A.P. v France) contradict the Convention.

“It is regrettable that cruel and unnecessary medical examinations are seen to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to raise awareness about the human rights abuses in the medical field that trans people are still systematically subjected to.”, says Richard Köhler, Senior Policy Officer of Transgender Europe.

The three applicants have been struggling for almost a decade to have their gender identity recognised by the French state. Before October 2016, a person who wanted to have their gender identity legally recognised needed to prove infertility and genital surgery plus undergo excessive and lengthy discriminatory examinations.

The Court found that requesting proof for “having undergone a sterilising operation or medical treatment resulting in a very high probability of infertility, amounts to a breach by the respondent State of its positive obligation to guarantee the right […] to respect for […] private life.” Thus, states cannot demand from a person seeking legal gender recognition to undergo any medical treatment that would most likely result in sterility.

Under the United Kingdom Gender Recognition Act, trans people who experience severe gender variance, and have medical treatment for the condition, may apply to the Gender Recognition Panel(GRP) for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The GRC then entitles them to recognition of the gender stated on that certificate “for all purposes”. Where the person's birth was originally registered in the UK, the GRC may be used to obtain a new birth certificate.

(2) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(b), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied— (a) that the country or territory under the law of which the applicant has changed gender is an approved country or territory, and (b) that the applicant complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.

I think you will find that even if one has emigrated to Australia, the procedure is still relevant to the domain where the original birth was registered, GRC's are not a view on demand document, only being needed for the revised birth certificate, the legal requirement for the change of gender and in accordance with the marriage act revisions.

A Statutory Deceleration is required by the GRP, usually obtained from a commissioner for Oaths, or a Magistrate, not know if the GRP would accept same from a German authority.

In my opinion if you have complied with paragraph 3. where relevant, supplied documentation, the act does not exclude registered practitioners from member EU states, If you do nor want to send original documents, you can use photo copies, if they are certified by a commissioner of oaths as being certified copies of an original document. eg, passports and driving licences.

As I see it, living abroad brings a few problems with it regarding GRCs. The GRP seems to expect us to follow the rules of the country we live in when transitioning without apparently realising that, probably in most cases, these rules only apply to nationals of the country concerned. I live in Germany and, to judge by the info on the GRP homepage/directgov., I'm expected to comply with the so-called Transsexuellen Gesetz(TSG). However, even without the lousy translation on the directgov. page, I know that foreigners like me are excluded from this law unless our home countries do not allow changes of name, gender etc. Instead, as TGs we are expected to follow the laws, regulations etc. of our home countries, the reason being that, as far as the german government is concerned, changes of name, gender etc.etc. are national matters of the individual countries and Berlin is not going to interfere in such matters.There is even a law which makes it clear that the naming practice for foreigners resident in Germany depends upon the laws etc. of their home countries.

I've applied for a GRC, I've informed the GRP that, as a foreigner/UK citizen resident in Germany, I am excluded from the TSG and that, where necessary, the relevant german authorities have accepted my interpretation of the law. Any day now the reaction (rejection?) should arrive in the post.

Of course, quite how the GRP expects someone living in Germany, or wherever, to comply with the official UK transition procedures is a mystery to me! Are we supposed to keep jetting over to CX or wherever? As far as I am concerned, if the german health system is happy to treat me without reference to the TSG then I'm perfectly happy with that. I have to assume that all are acting within the rules.

Whether I'll be given a GRC will be revealed at the end of March.........

As I see it, living abroad brings a few problems with it regarding GRCs. The GRP seems to expect us to follow the rules of the country we live in when transitioning without apparently realising that, probably in most cases, these rules only apply to nationals of the country concerned. I live in Germany and, to judge by the info on the GRP homepage/directgov., I'm expected to comply with the so-called Transsexuellen Gesetz(TSG). However, even without the lousy translation on the directgov. page, I know that foreigners like me are excluded from this law unless our home countries do not allow changes of name, gender etc. Instead, as TGs we are expected to follow the laws, regulations etc. of our home countries, the reason being that, as far as the german government is concerned, changes of name, gender etc.etc. are national matters of the individual countries and Berlin is not going to interfere in such matters. There is even a law which makes it clear that the naming practice for foreigners resident in Germany depends upon the laws etc. of their home countries.

I've applied for a GRC, I've informed the GRP that, as a foreigner/UK citizen resident in Germany, I am excluded from the TSG and that, where necessary, the relevant german authorities have accepted my interpretation of the law. Any day now the reaction (rejection?) should arrive in the post.

The Passports Act 2008, section 11, offers an important avenue for recognition of the acquired gender of a transsexual person. For this purpose, a person who is transsexual may seek a passport in their new name and have their new sex entered therein. This does not confer any right or entitlement not connected with the purposes of the Passports Act. For instance, it would not alter the legal gender of the person for the purpose of marriage law.

So the intimation is, one would have to have a GRC to comply with the marriage act.,. that's why they have made the exclusion ref the marriage act, so in essence you can change the gender on your passport, but you cannot use your passport as proof of gender to get married without the GRC. As far as I am aware one does not have to produce a GRC to any authority. This is why some government departments require an undertaking that the change of gender is to be permanent. A letter of confirmation from your GP should suffice, and goes back to the clause in the GRA *under medical supervision*

Again the Gender Recognition Act is not complete in its entirety and needs to refer to other acts of parliments and judicial precedents that have evolved since the last update of the Gender Recognition Act.

Any changes to the EHRC 2013 are not relevant to the requirements and definition to other UK Acts, such as the Passport act, Marriage Act, NH Act or DWP requirements unless those acts have also been ammended. After makinhg all the required submissions one should be issued with a NEW NI number by the DWP and NH registration number, all links to your previous identy must be ammended hence the new numbers. So a letter from your doctor intimating that the change is permanent, if that is demanded that is what you should do. I changed my documents prior to the advent of the GRA, and for a number of years I had to travel abroad with the M marker on my passport, with an acompanying letter to substaniate why I presented as a female with a female name and a male gender marker. Things have got a lot easier.

Time passes...and here's a possibly interesting story. The new pass arrived and, armed with that and copies of my deed poll with a certified translation I started the process of informing authorities etc. The only place that was troublesome was the State Pension Authority who initially refused to accept the changes because I hadn't used the TSG (Transsexuellen Gesetz - I live in Germany). However, I politely pointed out to them that, in my case, the TSG doesn't apply (It applies to german citizens, recognised refugees , those granted political asylum, stateless persons, and foreigners whose home countries do not allow changes of name - none of these apply to me - I'm a british citizen and, as we all know, name changes in the UK are no problem at all) and, in any case, there's another law which states that names for foreigners depend upon the relevant laws in their home countries. A week or two later I got a letter from them giving me a new, female, state pension number! I gave the same info to my bank and they were no trouble.

Now the next round of the fun is starting. As a consequence of the brexit vote, I shall possibly be applying for german citizenship. This will require a 'corrected' birth cert. which means a GRC - and the GRC board apparently expect me to use the TSG (see above!), if the the yougov info is anything to go by. A notary public has signed the stat. dec. bits, I've got all sorts of papers with my new name and status, including the call to breast screening(!), so in a few days I'll send it all off and wait with bated breath for the rejection(!).

I live in interesting times!

As to why I don't appear here more often- I may be on the pension but that doesn't mean I've got time on my hands what with my music, my photo-art, cats and long walks in the forest etc!

Attending a Seminar EHR Court rulings prisons and trans accomdodation I come back to something I wrote years ago in the general forum, oh I love research.

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death. Like THAT makes sense.)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.

(Do they look different reversed?)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers. The sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times.

(A brick?)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.(Much worse than 'going blind!')*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first time. Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.

(Let's just think for a minute; is there any job anywhere else in the world that even comes close to this?)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands.The husband's illicit lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

(Ah! Justice!)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England but only in tropical fish stores.

(But of course!)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act. In case he needs instruction?)

(Makes one shudder at the thought.)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

In Santa Cruz, Bolivia, it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter/son at the same time.

(I presume this was such a huge problem that they had to pass this law?)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one exception: Prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises.'

(Is this a great country or what? but not as great as Guam!)*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

(Who volunteers for these tests?)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The ant can lift 50 times its own weight, can pull 30 times its own weight and always falls over on its right side when intoxicated(From drinking little bottles of???)

(Did our government pay for this research??)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Butterflies taste with their feet.

(Ah, geez.)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.

(I know some people like that.)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Starfish don't have brains..

(I know some people like that, too.)*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

And, the best for last?

Turtles can breathe through their butts.

Crissie knows quite a few people that can actually talk through their butts.

The writer is now in Guam …

Last but not least its not illegal to place a fire cracker in your arse and set it off

I take your point, but in the main people/companies that advertise with Google pay for their advertising even if it is under the heading of Google. who obviously advertise themselves as purveyour of information relating to sales. A similie would be Sainsburys advertising a brand of washing powder, knowing that the interest is profit based, leading brand equall maximum profit for that particular item. Google do not necessarily own the companies that place the adverts, Google is now owned by Alphabet and will be reporting and trading in that name, but still in the group of companies owned by Google, traded seperately on the stock market as Alphabet. A major share holder is the Chinese information bureau. Oh and they have a spare 35 Billion cash in the bank to play with. They could be considered morally corupt, but I do not think what they are doing is illegal. Worldwide they provide thousands of jobs, which in turn help those countries ecomomies in what the labour force spends and the personal tax they pay to their governments on what they earn, The British allready complain about the ammount of corporation tax they pay, but they do pay any Value added tax due in the countries they operate in. Millions of people use Google Crome, YouTube and other internet facilities they provide, free.

In Europe for instance, the UK in particular public transport is owned by private companies by area, the government do not allow other firms to operate in those areas in the main, so there is no competition, so if you need to travel you pay what ever is demanded It is a hostage related market for people who need to travel to work does the EU monopolies commisions make that illegal, of course not, the governments make corporation tax prfits from them, it is only because google use legal tax avoidance systems that upset the powers that be, like Cameron who inherited money using the same methods, did he volountarily offer to pay tax fue, no he complained about google and other si,milar companies that use legal tax avoidance systems which EU ministers and rich people use all the time.

Google is probably worth more in assets and cash than some countries, and if they took a country to court, that country would probably go bankrupt over litigation costs on appeal.

The danger in allowing Google to be both the portal to the internet, which ought to be neutral and fair, and also being a profit center for their ad revenues is in the perceived conflict of interest. So from the EU perspective, you can see why they are doing what they did. In sports, it is called "house rules" where the "game" is manipulated to achieve desired results. This means it is not fair and neutral at all but rather like a Euro football match where one team is playing on the road, has two players red carded, and a ref who spots "fouls" whenever it is convenient to get a call. In Google's case, their supposed "search results" usually lead to a prominent placement that remarkably are tied to their businesses.

The danger in this for all of the world becomes the obvious potential for total manipulation of the population based on the agenda of whoever controls the internet. One could literally rewrite history...

Google suffered a major blow on Tuesday after European antitrust officials fined the search giant a record $2.7 billion for unfairly favoring some of its own services over those of rivals.

The penalty, of 2.4 billion euros, highlights the aggressive stance that European officials have taken in regulating many of the world’s largest technology companies, going significantly further than their American counterparts.

By levying the fine against Google — more than double the previous largest penalty in this type of antitrust case — Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s antitrust chief, also laid claim to being the Western world’s most active regulator of digital services, an industry still dominated by Silicon Valley.

“In Europe, companies must compete on the merits regardless if they are European or not,” she said on Tuesday. “What Google has done is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules.”

Crissie says

Does that mean Sainsburys and Tesco's, Aldi must advertise each others businesses? must the local corner shop be forced to tell customers that a carton of milk is cheaper 3 miles away at the superstore.

This all stems from Google heading up their own web pages with their own adverts. WTF

Does a local plumber who advertises his own skills have to pay extra advertising space to mention every other plumber in the EU ???

The EU continues to try and rule the world through it's own ludicrous aims and resolutions.

Christine I would agree with what Suzy has said but thought it was very funny that he would insure the cigars and the smoke them and then try to claim on them,
He must of high on cigar smoke to claim ha ha ha

A lawyer in Charlotte, NC purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim with the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires." But... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

The question everyone is asking, should this type of crime warrant the same human rights as any 'normal' person, the expense of surgery etc. when children are denied certain types of treatment due to prohibitive costs, or even getting ahead in the que for reasignment surgery. We are not talking about stealing a carton of milk or a loaf of bread here, we are aware two young girls were violently raped and traumatised. Now I am aware the Ian Huntley who murdered and sexually asaulted two very young schoolgirls has stated his intention to go the same route. Whilst my remit is to defend human rights and my commitment to the transgender community to be treated fairly with respect and get what they need under the existing laws, are human rights being extended to the point that, these people can disadvantage society in general. Are these animals entitled to the same rights as honest decent people regardless of being transgendered or not. They should in my opinion only deserve the basic needs to keep them alive to serve out any sentence imposed upon them.

As you say Cris ,"All to often these occasions are sensationalised by the press as if it was because a person is transgendered and that was a reason why they committed such a dastardly offence".Transgendered people are victimised by this and emotionally affected by this,Non Transgendered people are not victimised and not emotionally affected.There is the exception which is people who assert the emotion and actions of fury in false judgement .Why are the Press still inciting likely prejudice toward Transgender people by this careless toxic association.

Basically one can change ones name and gender overnight, just by completing a change of name deed poll, then the time it takes to notify all relevant departments and busineses. Obviously passports and driving licences and government departsments take a little longer all depends on the postal system. By law people must recocognise your new gender and name when they receive the deed poll. After two years living in ones new gender, one can apply to have their birth certificate gender and name changed and then are legally the new gender for all intense and purpose regarding marriage pension entitlement.

Emotions should not be a factor in a case like this. She got what she needed a provision in law, surgery etc, and she is entitled to privacy as a transgendered person, as such she should not be ridiculed, harrased, bullied for being transgendered. BUT as a convicted rapist it goes with the ''job'' ie, racing drivers take the risk of inury by being involved in a crash, if they get hurt they accept it as part of the job they do, other drivers if they are inured by another driver who drives while drunk, thats another matter. Convicted rapist can expect to be villified, but being a transgendered person should not be alluded to regarding the crime. All to often these occasions are sensationalised by the press as if it was because a person is transgendered and that was a reason for commiting such a dastardly offence.

A convicted rapist who had a publicly-funded sex change operation while in prison has been moved to a women’s jail.

Father-of-three Martin Ponting was jailed for life in 1995 after attacking two girls. He was serving his sentence at the high security men’s jail HM Prison Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire, eastern England.

Having decided to live as a woman, Ponting, now 50 years old, had a £10,000 ($12,500) sex change operation courtesy of British taxpayers and now goes by the name Jessica Winfield. He changed his name at least a decade ago.

According to The Sun, Winfield is currently serving time in the women’s jail HM Prison Bronzefield in Surrey and is hoping to be released this year.

One of Winfield’s victims told The Sun: “He may have changed physically but his brain is still the same. To assume the identity of a woman after what he did is a kick in the teeth. There are not enough words to describe him and the evil he has done. It is diabolical they have allowed him to have a sex change and diabolical that he could be freed this year. He may have changed physically but his brain is still the same. You can change somebody’s genitals but it’s not going to take away the urge and impulse inside them to do horrific things to children. I feel like it mocks the people he offended against. It is a kick in the teeth for me and his other victim.”

Transgender prisoners in the UK have been allowed to apply for publicly-funded gender surgery since 1999.

Cristine Shye

Previous Names

It is rare for an article about a transgender person not to reveal their previous name. This conveys the false impression that transgender people are happy to have their previous names made public. A transgender person takes a new name to reflect their public change of gender. They discard the old name in the process and the deed poll on change of name is quite emphatic about this. Under no circumstance is the old name retained.

Why should you avoid revealing a transgender person's former name?

You may place the transgender person at risk or harrassment.

You may place yourself at risk of prosecution.

It may be very difficult for you to undo your actions.

When a Gender Recognition Cerificate (GRC) is awarded, it becomes a criminal offence to reveal the owner's transgender history. At present the fine is £5000. It is the individual who reveals the name, not the organisation for which they work, who will face charges. There are no exemptions for journalism as there are with the Data Protection Act. Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act was created with an "expectation of privacy" in mind.

It is important for a transgender person to be able to wipe the slate clean, to live a life free from persecution. Provided they have no outstanding debts, their credit history will be erased. They will be entitled to a new passport and driving licence. There is even a fresh birth certificate to help them through life. All of this is to no avail if their previous and current name are linked on a website. When this happens, such a person has no choice but to change their name again if they want the privacy to which they are entitled.

Whilst the legal position is not cut-and-dried, it is heavily weighted in favour of the transgender person. Even colleagues discussing a post-transitional person may be in breach of this law. Even before the award of a GRC, charges of harassment may be applied if the person is reported about on separate occasions using their previous name. Any article remaining on the internet following the award of a GRC may expose its author and editor to risk of prosecution.

The award of a GRC is never publicly announced, of course. There have been no high-profile prosecutions under Section 22 but that situation is unlikely to last. It is best to respect the terms of the person's deed poll and refer to them by their chosen name only.

It would be common knowlege in the previous mens prison as to this persons status and gender change, BUT when she was transfered to the womans prison, every effort should have been made to avoid the previous name and status being revealed. It does not do the rest of the Trans community any favours! I hope the women in the prison where this person now resides make it clear that women in society are not afforded any special privalages and are barred from making any claims for compensation for any discomfort and harrasment they receive, One case I would have to refuse, acting for a plaintif in this situation.

http://50wire.com/id/17147285773Wednesday, January 18 - 3:32 AM UK Metro - Richard HartleyForget the battle between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians - the war of today is between prams and wheelchairs on buses. The Supreme Court will today rule whether disabled travellers are legally entitled...

Does this absolve bus companies from contract law.

The bus driver is the representative of the bus company, passengers pre-pay for their journey on a top up card, as soon as they swipe the card and the fare is deducted from the balance on the card, a contract exists, so over say the first five stops, the bus is full includeing standing people and a puschair in the disabled space,, can the driver then eject a number of passengers and the person with a pushchair to make space for a disabled persons wheelchair.

In london this would mean that when they get on the folowing bus they have to swipe thier card again, now they have paid twice, now say on this second bus after another two stops another person in a wheelchair demanded to get on the bus?